Working overtime on behalf of George W. Bush this week, "reporters" (or, "copy-editors" as they are likely better described) from the "Liberal" Media around the country were busy attempting to make their "President" look just a little bit better.

As tipped-off by several BRAD BLOG commenters, we've found scores of "news" outlets which found it appropriate to clean up after Bush's Tuesday Rose Garden Press Conference for him.

In response to a question about the recent Amnesty International report alleging human rights violations by the Bush Administration in their mistreatment of prisoners in Gitmo --- which they described as "the gulag of our times" --- here's how Bush actually responded, according to the White House's own website (and a couple of still-honest papers), on Tuesday [emphasis added]...

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 31, 2005

President's Press Conference
The Rose Garden
President's Remarks
10:43 A.M. EDT
...
THE PRESIDENT: I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. It's an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that is --- promotes freedom around the world. When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way. It's just an absurd allegation.

In terms of the detainees, we've had thousands of people detained. We've investigated every single complaint against the detainees. It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of --- and the allegations --- by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble --- that means not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd report. It just is.

The Leader of the Free World apparently meant "dissemble" (which means to not tell the truth, as he helped us to understand in his charming 4th-Grader-Defines-Newly-Learned-Word sorta way) as opposed to "disassemble" which, we are fairly certain, means something entirely different.

But never misunderestimate the American Media's "Liberal Bias" in working overtime to keep their "President" from looking too terribly stupid! Here's just a few examples (and there are many more) of how they covered for him...

Bush said that "it seemed like to me (Amnesty International) based some of their decisions on the word of, and the allegations, by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to dissemble. That means not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd report."

"It seemed to me they based some of their decisions on the word of --- and the allegations -by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to dissemble --- that means not tell the truth," Bush said.

Referring to the report, Bush said, "It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on . . . allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to . . . not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd report."

Mr. Bush says thousands of people have been detained in the fight against terrorism and all allegations of abuse have been investigated. He says it seems like some of the Amnesty report is based on the word of people who hate America and have been trained to lie.

language is the foundation of civilization. in societies with rules of behavior, the most basic rules are the rules of language. if one has no respect for those rules and disciplines one is not likely to be able to properly extend and distribute his or her responsibility to varous other bedrock commitments to civilization. our greatest presidents-- jefferson, lincoln, fdr, jfk, bill clinton-- all were extremely sophisticated and well-educated wordsmiths who demonstrated every day their respect and love for the english language. bush's disrespect for english mirrors and supports his basic disrespect for democracy, equality and most of the meaningful values of american society. unfortunately, he and most of his followers are simply too stupid to know this.

They have not allowed even one detainee the legal rights under our law and international law.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on it and subsequent to that the neocon fascists have been dragging their feet and bad mouthing the courts.

Why? Because Amnesty International is right and the courts are right and the detentions are gulag illegal. They know it and are trying to find some way to lie their way out of it, to cover up, to obfuscate, to continue in delusion and denial.

And the single most important reason for it is as Brad posts here quite eloquently - the rose colored glasses and the brown noses of the MSM.

The MSM, with few exceptions, are now the crazed propaganda arm of the deranged and despicable regime that has made our wonderful country to be hated as never before.

During the run up to November's stolen election, Aaron Brown had D.L. Hughley on, who had this to say about Bush's language issues:

HUGHLEY: I have a hard time voting for a dude that I'm pretty sure I could beat in a spelling bee.

So you know, it's funny because I was watching the last debates, and all of the people were going, "Well, you know, Bush, that's not his format. He's not a good public speaker."

This is a rich white dude who went to Yale. He didn't go to Compton College. If --- if a rich white dude who went to Yale doesn't have command of the English language, he's lazy. That's the deal. He didn't have to walk through a gang-infested neighborhood to do that, just walk past the servants and go to school.

So I think that --- that tells me about the --- the guy who I think he is.

BROWN: Here's what's unsettling for me. I am reasonably sure, because I believe the spell checker was the greatest invention of the last century, that he can beat me in a spelling bee.

HUGHLEY: No, I'm sure. This dude blow up everything he can't spell. How do you spell "Baghdad?" Boom! "That's how you spell it."

I just got off the phone with Bush. I asked him what he thought of Jim Lampley's analysis of the election, and he replied as follows:

"How's my good buddy Lamp-o? He's one terrific boxing prognostisizer, I always said that. Boxing is really a great sport, because of Marcus Aurelius Queensbery. Marcus made up the rules for the Roman umpire, who didn't know the rules. Terrific guy, old Lamp-o. But why does he care about my erection?"

Re:#3
JIM LAMPLEY, I second Bushw@cker's very warm welcome to the Bradblog. You are high on my growing but small list of heros & patriots who are not afraid to speak truth to power. Thank you and I look forward to more of your comments here in the bradasphere.

"At a press conference on Tuesday, President Bush, speaking about detainees who had complained of being abused, said they were "people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble - that means not tell the truth." Mr. Bush meant, of course, to say dissemble, which really means to deliberately mislead or conceal. Nevertheless, he knew what he was talking about. The president may have stumbled over the pronunciation, but he's proved time and again that he's a skillful practitioner of the art."

I would like to echo your comment that the (good guys) "all were extremely sophisticated and well-educated wordsmiths who demonstrated every day their respect and love for the english language."

It appears that "Deep Throat" shares your love of language. I copy below a part of Woodward's comments about Felt, and further on, give the same comments with more context. The link I cite is not the first version of the Woodward story, but it's the one I have at hand.

Word: gauleiter

"Mr. Felt, a much more learned man than most realized, later wrote that he considered Mr. Huston "a kind of White House gauleiter over the intelligence community." The word "gauleiter" is not in most dictionaries, but in the four-inch-thick Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, it is defined as "the leader or chief official of a political district under Nazi control."

At the time, pre-Watergate, there was little or no public knowledge of the vast pushing, shoving, and outright acrimony between the Nixon White House and Hoover's FBI. The Watergate investigations later revealed that, in 1970, a young White House aide named Tom Charles Huston had come up with a plan to authorize the CIA, FBI, and military intelligence units to intensify electronic surveillance of "domestic security threats," authorize illegal opening of mail, and lift the restrictions on surreptitious entries or break-ins to gather intelligence.

Mr. Huston warned in a top-secret memo that the plan was "clearly illegal." Nixon initially approved the plan anyway. Hoover strenuously objected, because eavesdropping, opening mail,and breaking into homes and offices of domestic security threats was basically the FBI bailiwick, and the bureau didn't want competition. Four days later Nixon rescinded the Mr. Huston plan.

Mr. Felt, a much more learned man than most realized, later wrote that he considered Mr. Huston "a kind of White House gauleiter over the intelligence community." The word "gauleiter" is not in most dictionaries, but in the four-inch-thick Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, it is defined as "the leader or chief official of a political district under Nazi control."

There is little doubt Mr. Felt thought the Nixon team were Nazis. During this period, he had to stop efforts by others in the bureau to "identify every member of every hippie commune" in the Los Angeles area, for example, or to open a file on every member of the Students for a Democratic Society.

If you think about it, Cole, it isn't possible to actually spread freedom, because freedom is a concept, not a thing. It's like the war on terrorism; you can fight a person, or a country, but there's no such thing as a war on a tactic.

Iraqis have no frame of reference for what Bush means by freedom, which is really free enterprise, or free-market capitalism. "Liberty" is a word Bush never utters, because liberty represents pure freedom...including the right of any nation or individual to opt out of a system favoring multinational corporations that insist on the
"freedom" to dominate markets.

Bush is probably too dimwitted to understand the difference himself. Paradoxically, that makes him the perfect person to talk about "freedom" from the neo-cons' perspective, because they want the word to substitute for liberty while granting freedom to Exxon-Mobil, Coca-Cola and McDonald's.

Or as W. would say, "The transmutation of jobs to places that have no freedom is our great challenge, because there are people who want to catapult the propaganda against those jobs...terrorists, they're called, and they hate freedom just as much as they hate transmutations. We can't let them do that."

Mr. Lampley, interesting point. I've always said that one of the many major differences between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton was arguably the most intelligent man in his administration, and Bush is arguably the least intelligent man in his administration.

I read something by Woody Harrelson recently, which had a short paragraph in it that summed up this administration in a few words:

"...And blaming the President for the country's woes is like yelling at a puppet for the way it sings.
Who's the man behind the curtain pulling the strings?..."

Lampley #3: Your proposition is tantalizing. Have you developed it further elsewhere? What about someone like George Will, a brilliant wordsmith who is invariably wrong about everything on which he turns his attention? Another angle--do you correlate logic skills with love of language? Does logic derive from grammar and syntax? In those brief comments you have the making of a daring Phd thesis. At any rate, about one thing you are surely correct--W is a sloppy talker because he is a sloppy thinker.

Wow! On some of these threads you guys just shine, and this is one of them. Thanks, all. You make me proud.

To the extent this is accurate, there's obviously no direct correlation between brains and success in office. But having been born in 1941 and remembering every president since Truman, I can say I never felt I was smarter than the president until this guy came along. Not a cozy feeling.

On the all-time list, Bush would rank second from the bottom, barely ahead of Grant and just below Franklin Pierce and Zachary Taylor. John Quincy Adams would rank first, Jefferson second, Lincoln third and Madison fourth.

On the radio news tonight (Premiere radio, very MSM), in an item about Bush still pushing Social Security private accounts, the newscaster actually noted that Bush was speaking to "a handpicked audience, as usual."

What's going on? Are TPTB getting ready to dump this guy? Are the buzzards circling?

It's nice to see that at least some people still agree on the importance of literacy. I just marked an exam on which the student misspelled the word "sketch", immediately below the spot where the very same word appeared in the question. This guy's going to end up with a degree - I just hope he doesn't end up as our prime minister!

Here's a scary thought - how much more dangerous would W be if he WASN'T the least intelligent president of the century?

Interesting question, Cuthbert. My presumption has been that if Bush had a brain, he'd be able to neutralize some of the wackos surrounding him who are smarter than he is (though they rarely act like it)...Bolton, Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Santorum and Frist come to mind.

In other words, he's easy to manipulate because he's dumb, and knows it. If he had just average intelligence, the power of his office would give him control. And it would enable him to converse intelligently with the true intellects in the G.O.P. who have to kowtow to a dumbkopf. That must be hard for the likes of Lugar, Powell, Kemp, Will, Buckley, and David Brooks.

re: literacy - I am a nervous wreck here, two months to go before school starts back and almost every day something happens that makes me reconsider my decision.

Someone please tell me that I am not making a huge mistake in agreeing to my son's wishes to attend public school for the first time in his life (for ninth grade). He had a 490 verbal/510 math on SAT in seventh grade.

If his love for learning, and his scores, go down now, I'll know why - and he's OUTTA THERE!

Nana makes a good point (#18) ... The USA would never release a detainee who had been trained by terrorists. Not a chance. We paid good money for those detainees and we are not about to let go of those who could hurt us. Therefore those who have been released have not been trained by terrorists, and although we can probably believe the "president" when he says they hate America [after three and a half years living in a cage, wouldn't you?] we have a much more difficult time believing that they were trained to lie. On the other hand, bush himself has had long and intense training in that very thing, so for him to say that the allegations brought by Amnesty International are "absurd" because those who made them were "trained to disassemble" ... that's so twisted!

And yet dick cheney is offended. How about that? Aren't the detainees --- especially the innocent detainees --- the people who have the most right to be offended?

Kestrel, in your state back in 1925, John Scopes was a science teacher whose students were about the same age as your boy. Scopes was put on trial for teaching evolution (the "Monkey Trial"). Teaching evolution made sense because Scopes was teaching science, and scientists (Darwin and others) had already proven the case that man was descended from apes.

But a law had just been passed that said you couldn't do that, because evolution conflicted with a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible. In fact it didn't, because Adam and Eve might in reality have been ape-like creatures who kept a tyrannosaurus for a pet (as did Fred and Wilma Flintstone). The notion that evolution is necessarily counter-intuitive to the Bible is simply wrong; it depends on the biblical assumption that Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago, when in fact a "year" to a bible writer might have been what we call a million years (because of astronomical truths that weren't understood until the 15th century C.E.)

If your son is forced to study under a teacher who places religious dogma (probably Christian-right dogma) ahead of science, he's got a problem. If his teacher says, "Scientists have proven X, the Bible says Y, but X and Y might be compatible," then he's in great shape. Good luck.

Kids need to learn how to interact socially with the "mix." I think it's as important as their other studies. I'm sure you will continue to guide and encourage him to be on a lifelong quest for knowledge!

It sounds like you've given your son a great start. If he gets bored with the lower quality studies at school, I'm sure you can help him with extra home courses on the side. He might just breeze through college!

RLM #21
Sure Freedom can be spread--it is a concept or an idea and just expressing the idea can do the trick. But it is the gwb methodology of lies, distortions and destruction i.e. bomb them to pieces until they raise the white flag and yell "I'm Free!", that is repulsive.

KestrelBrighteyes - typical Liberal. Preach (virtually attempt to dictate) diversity and vow (emptily) civil rights, but make fun of people with speech impediments or who think so fast that they have trouble being articulate. Keep uo the good work, you hypocrite.

OT WARNING - This is to Robert Lockwood Mills and to Kira - the rest of you might want to skip this part

Robert #35 - Ah yes, the Scopes legacy lives on in Tennessee, and in other parts of the south.

On a science field trip to Cathedral Caverns in Alabama, where the students were mostly age 10 and under, the tour guide was explaining to the kids how it took millions of years for some of the formations inside the cave to get as big as they were. Then she said, "But we know the earth isn't that old, so somewhere along the line we figure the process must have been quicker" I looked over at one of the other moms and she rolled her eyes and shook her head, then caught my eye and laughed. I'm sure there was a lot of de-programming after classes that day.

I taught my son for the past four years, and his father and I are very science oriented, so he's got a firm grasp of the subtle differences between scientific theory and faith. Most importantly, he's been taught that it's okay to question, and that the main focus of spirituality should be love, not fear.

Although his father and I are basically pantheists (with buddhist, pagan, and native american leanings , we have covered different world religions as part of our world history classes, so he has some knowledge of the different faiths - and he has been taught to show respect, even if he totally disagrees with what someone is saying. He isn't shy about questioning, and it puzzles him when people don't want to answer his questions. It's hard to accept that there are so many people who firmly hold to a belief without extensive knowledge of that belief. And he gets VERY frustrated when someone won't take his ideas seriously just because he's young. That may be the hardest part of public school for him - dealing with being treated like a child.

Given my experiences being raised around fundamentalists, and being taught that to question anything in the Bible is sinful, has allowed me a unique perspective on the way some of these people think. It's also allowed me over the years to hone my skills as far as dealing with those who are determined to beat me vigorously about the brain with "THE TRUTH!!" (We call them "spiritual terrorists") I think - I hope - that I've given him enough tools to deal with the really aggressive ones tactfully.

My only fear is that I'll be called to the school because some overzealous person of authority tells him that the Bible is the "absolute truth", and he says something like "Only SITH think in absolutes" *L*

*****

Kira #36 - I'm glad we've had the homeschooling experience, it's taught him to socialize with all ages of people and to relate to people based on common interests instead of age. It's funny, he likes being around adults, and really doesn't understand why his friends don't like to stop and talk to adults when they're out, especially the elderly woman across the road - he thinks she's interesting. It's common for him to chastise his friends for being mean to other kids just because they're younger - and he was crushed when an older girl who was his friend wouldn't even talk to him when her other friends were around. It'll be an adjustment for him to be only around kids near his own age most of the time, that's for sure.

However, I am not foolish enough not to realize that a big part of his reasons for deciding to try public school for ninth grade is that out of 300+ ninth graders, half or more are bound to be female. The hormones kicked in right on schedule. And, he's feeling the normal adolescent need to find his place in the social pecking order.

Education isn't just about academics, it's about life skills. But when the bar for academic achievement in our schools is so low, when the kids are not expected and encouraged to excel, I worry for the future of this country.

And when the President of the United States is so lacking in intelligence, and when his lack of verbal skills are met with a "so what?" attitude, where's the motivation to strive for anything above that level?

It's the so-what attitude, combined with Bush's arrogance, that make his verbal gaffes so awful.
His old man did the same thing occasionally. Dan Quayle did it all the time. But it seemed harmless when they did it.

Bush not only can't distinguish "dissemble" from
"dissassemble," but he feels the need to preach to the reporter by saying, "...that means to lie." Is there anything more annoying than having an idiot preach to you?

I'm not sure he doesn't do it on purpose. Look at all the focus people have put on his wrong choice of words. It's bad...but what's worse is that he got away with calling people liars who had already been deported BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM.

Did everyone pick up on that? Bush was calling innocent people liars! His assumption was that the country that trained terrorists to lie about their work also trained non-terrorists to do likewise...for no reason under the sun.

Only a moron would think that way. And only a press that can't identify a moron would let him get away with it.

The MSM thought it would be funny (ha, ha) if they could assist a moron like Bush defeat Gore, who had miles of intellect in comparison. I don't think they find it very humorous any longer; however, they now have to support and cover-up for the moron after he actually became President. The MSM got the President they deserve. It's unfortunate for the majority of Americans, who didn't want the moron to be President, especially the second time. Bush will be held accountable for his egregious actions, and so will the MSM.

His evident illiterate imbecility is actually a strength of sorts. In the first place, some people can't fathom that the leader of the world's superpower is actually an idiot. So, they give him some credit where none is due. In the second place, he is a far better liar than, say, Nixon because, being a fool, he can convince himself of anything; or, more accurately, he has a few simple-minded platitudes in place of the ability to think and distinguish - and he speaks them with sincerity. - even the verbal stumbles are useful evidence of sincerity. (It appears to "regular folks" that he is not a slick villain trying to snow the population.)

Nixon, of course, did the blinking bit when he lied and in general looked and acted like the sleazy crook that he was.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the moron-in-chief actually is a great and conscious liar. Maybe a cartoon religion has trained him to ignore reality.

Personally, I think his bland mind filled with platitudes and certainty was discovered and found very useful politically by those with a radical power agenda.

On the one hand, Arry, Bush admits he isn't very bright by making light of his verbal gaffes and by bragging about being a mediocre student. What did he say about "it proves 'C' students can make it."?

This is the "sincere," "just plain folks" role he gets away with in the red states, because people in the Bible belt have always hated intellectuals. That's what the "Monkey Trial" was really all about; the evolution vs. creationism debate was secondary to the social chasm between Bryan and the citizens of Dayton on the one hand, and that "big-city lawyer from Chicago," Darrow. Remember George Wallace, and how he got standing ovations all around the South by talking about "pointy-headed" intellectuals?

Bush departs from the script, though, by acting haughty even as he's acting stupid. He leans forward and says things like, "That means_____." as if he's a teacher and the reporter is a student. Think about it...Bush can't pronounce the word
"nuclear," he can't distinguish "disassemble" from "dissemble," yet he glares at a reporter, who is trained in the use of correct English, and tells him what words mean! He's done it often.

That's a combination of arrogance and stupidity beyond anything I've seen before in a public official.